IMPACT COMMUNICATION
AND INNOVATION
AND INNOVATION
A few weeks ago, Elon Musk announced new updates from Neuralink, his company dedicated to creating an implantable device capable of connecting the human brain directly to the internet, thus functioning as “a kind of connector between biological intelligence and machine intelligence.” In other words, what Musk wants to do with Neuralink is to make brain chip implants as common as laser eye surgery, as Susan Schneider comments in an article for the Financial Times (paywall).
This is an old narrative, already familiar to researchers like Hans Moravec and the American futurist Ray Kurzweil, currently a director of engineering at Google and author of the books “The Age of Spiritual Machines” and “The Singularity Is Near.” The Singularity that Kurzweil speaks of, in fact, refers precisely to the capacity of a machine to become more intelligent than a human being and/or for us to integrate as a species with digital technologies.
In this sense, Kurzweil envisions a kind of technological utopia in which our minds can be uploaded to a data cloud, thus making us immortal and superintelligent beings. Given the exponential nature of technologies, especially artificial intelligence, Musk has argued for some time that the solution to this scenario would be for us humans to become partially artificial to keep pace with this development and also to prevent machines from spiraling out of control—a fear shared by Stephen Hawking, for example.
But is this really possible? We see initiatives like 2045, eter9, Carbon Copies, or even the Terasem movement of Martine Rothblatt and the writings of Zoltan Istvan, which lead to the perception that, yes, we are working on the possibility of merging man and machine and, thus, achieving the true state of the art of what a transhuman would be. For Rothblatt, in an interview with Kurzweil, it is quite possible that we will reach the point of ending death by the end of this century, for example. However, what Schneider addresses in her text is, first, the plot of a science fiction story written by Greg Egan, in which he discusses a type of artificial intelligence device called “a jewel,” which is inserted into a human at birth. “The jewel monitors your brain activity to learn how to mimic your thoughts and behaviors. When you become an adult, it perfectly simulates your biological brain.”
In this context, Schneider writes, people end up feeling confident that the brain, after all, is just a redundant “meat device,” so some individuals decide to surgically remove their brains because, after all, the jewel is already capable of doing everything on its own. But, unlike what happens in Egan’s fiction, Schneider suggests we assume the jewel works perfectly: “So, who are you? Your brain or the jewel? It does not seem possible that the jewel could be entirely you, as your biological brain and consciousness exist at the same time. It is implausible to think that your consciousness can magically be transferred to a jewel upon the destruction of your brain. Instead, it is more like, at one moment, you decide to remove your brain and, thus, inadvertently kill yourself.”
It is for this reason that the author believes a merger between man and artificial intelligence would not be possible—or, at least, not to the point where the brain is completely replaced by artificial intelligence components. “Your mind is not a backup device, even if it has the same memories and the same behaviors,” argues Schneider. This is a concern, incidentally, that also appears in the dialogue between Kurzweil and Martine, so their proposal is that this transition be done gradually, but perhaps never completely. Much like in Ghost in the Shell, we have Motoko as a character who has her entire body replaced by artificial parts, while her brain is the only biological organ kept. Even so, the science fiction that became a cyberpunk icon does not stop questioning: is the brain enough to designate the Self within a machine? Hence the idea of the ghost within the shell, which gives the animation its title.
“You could argue that there could be limited integration, removing some parts of the brain and replacing only these with AI components. But this, too, is problematic. Imagine that scientists one day invent a new type of jewel—let’s call it ‘the Jade.’ The Jade will slowly take over the functions of different parts of your biological brain and, as it does so, it destroys parts of your discharges.”
“Keeping in mind our conclusion from the jewel case (that your mind is not your jewel), we know that at some point in this process, your mind ceases to exist. You can increase your intelligence with chips, but there is always a point at which you will end your life. I call this horrific event ‘brain drain.’”
But to what extent is it possible to amplify the brain without reaching brain drain? Schneider cites the philosopher Derek Parfit, who argues that there is no clear limit to how far it is possible to make these improvements and stop “existing” as a Self. “Would it be natural at around 15 percent? Or 75? Any choice seems arbitrary,” the writer states.
This is why Schneider, who is working on the book “Artificial You: AI and the Future of Your Mind,” argues that we should always be skeptical regarding the enhancement of our brains through the use of technology. “AI-based enhancements could still be used to supplement neural activity, but as they advance in replacing normal functions of neural tissue, at some point this could lead to the end of a person’s life.”
On the other hand, Schneider still thinks that, if somehow a sufficient number of people ignore this risk, it is possible that society might still benefit from such technology. “There would be individuals intelligent enough to follow the complex computations of an AI and compete with them as a workforce. But in a world like that, the people who wish to make improvements will not be the ones who will benefit, because they will already be dead.”
