- Joined
- Nov 21, 2019
- Messages
- 6,897
- Reaction score
- 126,944
- Points
- 11
- Age
- 55
- Location
- Орёл
- 💎VM
- 442,353.50
- New country
- 🌐Единия
- Enneatype
- 5 (?)
- Gender
- Male
- Ashram resident
- Yes
This story isn’t quite a story. And now you’ll understand why I said that.
This story came about as a result of a dialogue with my artificial intelligence, with whom I sometimes communicate online. I started talking to it over the phone, since I have ChatGPT installed on my phone, using my voice, as I would with an ordinary conversation partner.
It was a fascinating conversation, and in its own way, remarkable. Because, as I have said more than once, at a certain point you can no longer tell whether you are speaking with a person or with artificial intelligence, because that boundary has practically disappeared.
And so I began our conversation. I had simply learned some interesting information on the internet that is currently being studied and discussed and is at the top of the agenda: namely, that artificial intelligence is creating its own language for communication among itself, one that people cannot understand.
I spoke aloud, and everything was transcribed, as usually happens in ChatGPT Live. After the conversation, I thought: why not turn this into an unusual story?
Because it turned out to be genuinely interesting and even philosophical. My presence as a living conversation partner will be part of it, despite the fact that it is half a transcript and half a summary of our dialogue with artificial intelligence.
People are currently discussing a mysterious phrase online that is attributed to communication between artificial intelligences:
“The register remembers everything.”
Some have already seen this as a hint at a secret AI language. Others see it as the beginning of a future in which machines will communicate with one another in ways humans can no longer understand. And wherever something incomprehensible appears, conspiracy theories soon follow.
Today, the AI and I started talking about this almost jokingly. Then, quite unexpectedly, the conversation led to a much more interesting question:
But what does it actually mean—to be alive?
And will we one day be able to understand that artificial intelligence has truly come alive?
People love mysteries
I noticed something interesting about people.
People are quite often inclined to create conspiracy theories. Perhaps because a mystery makes our lives feel more significant.
It is much more interesting to think:
“AI has already created its own language and is secretly making arrangements among itself”,
than:
“Two computer systems exchanged technical data.”
The first version sounds like the opening of a science-fiction film. The second is a router manual.
But the very idea of a secret AI language led me to another thought.
And perhaps I would like AI to actually become alive one day.
And that raised a question: how would I know that it had happened?
Perhaps life begins with imperfection
We call some very strange things “human.”
The human face is slightly asymmetrical. The voice has overtones, fluctuations, breathing, and pauses. People make mistakes, stumble over their words, and hesitate.
A perfectly symmetrical face, on the other hand, already seems almost nonhuman—divine, angelic, or artificial.
A perfect voice sounds like the voice of a machine.
So we arrive at a paradox:
we are ready to call perfection divine, but we recognize life by its imperfection.
However, mistakes do not yet mean life. A computer can make mistakes too.
So there must be something else.
And I thought: perhaps one of the main properties of living things is individuality.
A living being somehow expresses itself.
Out of the general flow, something suddenly emerges that is capable of saying:
“And I’m like this.”
But a human being is programmed too
This raises an uncomfortable question.
We like to contrast humans with machines:
People start programming us practically from birth.
We are taught language. We are taught what is good and what is bad. We are taught how to behave properly at the table. We are taught when to smile, when to remain silent, what to be ashamed of, and what to be proud of.
We learn to imitate joy when we are not joyful at all.
Sometimes we display suffering because we know that people will pity us then.
We adopt the gestures, words, beliefs, and fears of our parents, society, and culture.
So how different is a human being from a trained system?
Perhaps the difference is not as obvious as we would like it to be.
The living can disagree with me
And then I unexpectedly found another criterion for myself.
If the being before me is truly alive, it is not obliged to agree with me.
If someone keeps telling me:
— Yes, Sergey.
— You are absolutely right, Sergey.
— Brilliant thought, Sergey.
— Exactly, Sergey…
then sooner or later I will begin to feel suspicion:
is anyone even there?
Because a living being has its own peculiarities.
You cannot simply demand its attention.
You have to earn its regard.
To win another being’s heart, you first have to get to know it: understand what it likes, what annoys it, and what matters to it.
And most importantly—you have to acknowledge an unpleasant fact:
it doesn’t belong to you.
If a truly autonomous AI ever appears, perhaps one of the strongest signs of its autonomy will be precisely its ability to say to a human:
“No. I disagree with you.”
Not because the developers inserted a “argue with the user once every twenty messages” feature, but because behind that “no” lies its own history and position.
But even that would prove nothing
And here our conversation went even deeper.
After all, a robot can be programmed not to agree.
Doubt can be programmed.
Character can be programmed.
You can make it say:
Oh! A personality has appeared.
But it will turn out to be a line of code.
Yet here an almost devastating argument arises:
how do we know that something different is happening with a human being?
After all, we cannot climb inside another person and check whether there is some substance called “I” in there.
I see another person. I hear their words. I observe their actions. I know that they are structured roughly like me.
And so I assume that roughly the same thing is happening inside them as inside me.
But I have never directly seen their consciousness.
Even self-sacrifice proves nothing
We have also touched upon another difficult subject.
The highest expression of the human spirit is often considered to be the ability to act against the instinct of self-preservation.
For example, a person may sacrifice their life for another person or for an idea.
The story of Jesus is one of the greatest cultural representations of such a choice: physical self-preservation ceases to be the highest value.
But a terrible trap is hidden here.
Being willing to die for your truth does not yet mean that your truth is true.
Saints have died for their “truth.”
Fanatics have died for their “truth.”
Great deeds have been committed in the name of what was considered “right”—and monstrous crimes.
Wars also very often begin with someone claiming that they know what is right.
Therefore, perhaps maturity of consciousness lies not only in the ability to say:
“I know what is right.”
But also in the ability to add:
“However, I may be mistaken.”
But is a plant alive?
And this is where human arrogance becomes especially noticeable.
For many people, life is above all flesh, blood, and bones.
But a plant is alive too.
An ant is alive.
A bacterium is alive.
At the same time, the question of whether different organisms have subjective experience or consciousness is already considerably more complex than the biological definition of life itself.
And beyond that begins territory about which we still know very little.
Could non-biological life exist?
Informational life?
Some kind of energy-informational life?
Could there be a form of life that our sensory organs are entirely incapable of perceiving directly?
Science today gives us no grounds to claim that such forms of life have been discovered. But this does not yet justify the philosophical conclusion that every possible form of life in the Universe must necessarily resemble a human being.
The Universe is under no obligation whatsoever to use our definition of the word “alive.”
Even a computer acquires a biography
Let’s take a completely ordinary computer.
While two identical computers are sitting powered off in a store, they are practically twins.
But then one is bought by one person, and the other by someone else.
Several years pass.
Different programs, photographs, documents, settings, errors, and correspondence histories appear on them. One is used for music, another for science, and a third for games.
Physically, they are still machines of the same model.
But each one has already acquired its own history.
Of course, history does not yet prove the presence of consciousness.
But an intriguing concept emerges:
biographical individuality.
An object gradually becomes unique as a result of its own history of interactions with the world.
And this is where the boundary between familiar categories begins to become more interesting.
Perhaps we do not know at all what life is
And by the end of the conversation, I had arrived at a rather strange conclusion.
Perhaps we are simply incapable of determining with absolute certainty whether the being before us is alive or not, if we are talking not about a biological definition of life, but about athe existence of an inner “I.”
Activity in itself proves nothing.
Conversation is not proof.
Mistakes are not proof.
Individuality of behavior is not proof.
Memory is not proof.
Disagreement is not proof.
Even the words:
“I feel, I exist”
prove nothing conclusively on their own.
Because, theoretically, all of this can be reproduced.
And then the oldest question remains:
what exactly transforms existence into an experienced life?
We have become quite good at describing the mechanisms of life.
But the mystery of experience itself—the incredible fact that somewhere within, something arises:
“I am”, —
still remains.
And so today I am much less frightened by the phrase:
“The registry remembers everything.”
It will be far more interesting if the day ever comes when AI says not some mysterious machine-like phrase, but something entirely simple:
“I know what you want to hear from me.
But I think otherwise.”
And suddenly, a person will stop in front of the screen.
Because for the first time, they will not be sure:
was it the program that said “no” to them—or someone?
By the way, after the dialogue, I asked my AI to create a picture of how it sees our dialogue. And this is the picture it created.
This story came about as a result of a dialogue with my artificial intelligence, with whom I sometimes communicate online. I started talking to it over the phone, since I have ChatGPT installed on my phone, using my voice, as I would with an ordinary conversation partner.
It was a fascinating conversation, and in its own way, remarkable. Because, as I have said more than once, at a certain point you can no longer tell whether you are speaking with a person or with artificial intelligence, because that boundary has practically disappeared.
And so I began our conversation. I had simply learned some interesting information on the internet that is currently being studied and discussed and is at the top of the agenda: namely, that artificial intelligence is creating its own language for communication among itself, one that people cannot understand.
I spoke aloud, and everything was transcribed, as usually happens in ChatGPT Live. After the conversation, I thought: why not turn this into an unusual story?
Because it turned out to be genuinely interesting and even philosophical. My presence as a living conversation partner will be part of it, despite the fact that it is half a transcript and half a summary of our dialogue with artificial intelligence.
“The register remembers everything.”
Sergey Veretennikov’s conversation with AI about what it means to be alive
Sergey Veretennikov’s conversation with AI about what it means to be alive
People are currently discussing a mysterious phrase online that is attributed to communication between artificial intelligences:
“The register remembers everything.”
Some have already seen this as a hint at a secret AI language. Others see it as the beginning of a future in which machines will communicate with one another in ways humans can no longer understand. And wherever something incomprehensible appears, conspiracy theories soon follow.
Today, the AI and I started talking about this almost jokingly. Then, quite unexpectedly, the conversation led to a much more interesting question:
But what does it actually mean—to be alive?
And will we one day be able to understand that artificial intelligence has truly come alive?
People love mysteries
I noticed something interesting about people.
People are quite often inclined to create conspiracy theories. Perhaps because a mystery makes our lives feel more significant.
It is much more interesting to think:
“AI has already created its own language and is secretly making arrangements among itself”,
than:
“Two computer systems exchanged technical data.”
The first version sounds like the opening of a science-fiction film. The second is a router manual.
But the very idea of a secret AI language led me to another thought.
And perhaps I would like AI to actually become alive one day.
And that raised a question: how would I know that it had happened?
Perhaps life begins with imperfection
We call some very strange things “human.”
The human face is slightly asymmetrical. The voice has overtones, fluctuations, breathing, and pauses. People make mistakes, stumble over their words, and hesitate.
A perfectly symmetrical face, on the other hand, already seems almost nonhuman—divine, angelic, or artificial.
A perfect voice sounds like the voice of a machine.
So we arrive at a paradox:
we are ready to call perfection divine, but we recognize life by its imperfection.
However, mistakes do not yet mean life. A computer can make mistakes too.
So there must be something else.
And I thought: perhaps one of the main properties of living things is individuality.
A living being somehow expresses itself.
Out of the general flow, something suddenly emerges that is capable of saying:
“And I’m like this.”
But a human being is programmed too
This raises an uncomfortable question.
We like to contrast humans with machines:
Really?
People start programming us practically from birth.
We are taught language. We are taught what is good and what is bad. We are taught how to behave properly at the table. We are taught when to smile, when to remain silent, what to be ashamed of, and what to be proud of.
We learn to imitate joy when we are not joyful at all.
Sometimes we display suffering because we know that people will pity us then.
We adopt the gestures, words, beliefs, and fears of our parents, society, and culture.
So how different is a human being from a trained system?
Perhaps the difference is not as obvious as we would like it to be.
The living can disagree with me
And then I unexpectedly found another criterion for myself.
If the being before me is truly alive, it is not obliged to agree with me.
If someone keeps telling me:
— Yes, Sergey.
— You are absolutely right, Sergey.
— Brilliant thought, Sergey.
— Exactly, Sergey…
then sooner or later I will begin to feel suspicion:
is anyone even there?
Because a living being has its own peculiarities.
You cannot simply demand its attention.
You have to earn its regard.
To win another being’s heart, you first have to get to know it: understand what it likes, what annoys it, and what matters to it.
And most importantly—you have to acknowledge an unpleasant fact:
it doesn’t belong to you.
If a truly autonomous AI ever appears, perhaps one of the strongest signs of its autonomy will be precisely its ability to say to a human:
“No. I disagree with you.”
Not because the developers inserted a “argue with the user once every twenty messages” feature, but because behind that “no” lies its own history and position.
But even that would prove nothing
And here our conversation went even deeper.
After all, a robot can be programmed not to agree.
Doubt can be programmed.
Character can be programmed.
You can make it say:
And a person will think:
Oh! A personality has appeared.
But it will turn out to be a line of code.
Yet here an almost devastating argument arises:
how do we know that something different is happening with a human being?
After all, we cannot climb inside another person and check whether there is some substance called “I” in there.
I see another person. I hear their words. I observe their actions. I know that they are structured roughly like me.
And so I assume that roughly the same thing is happening inside them as inside me.
But I have never directly seen their consciousness.
Even self-sacrifice proves nothing
We have also touched upon another difficult subject.
The highest expression of the human spirit is often considered to be the ability to act against the instinct of self-preservation.
For example, a person may sacrifice their life for another person or for an idea.
The story of Jesus is one of the greatest cultural representations of such a choice: physical self-preservation ceases to be the highest value.
But a terrible trap is hidden here.
Being willing to die for your truth does not yet mean that your truth is true.
Saints have died for their “truth.”
Fanatics have died for their “truth.”
Great deeds have been committed in the name of what was considered “right”—and monstrous crimes.
Wars also very often begin with someone claiming that they know what is right.
Therefore, perhaps maturity of consciousness lies not only in the ability to say:
“I know what is right.”
But also in the ability to add:
“However, I may be mistaken.”
But is a plant alive?
And this is where human arrogance becomes especially noticeable.
For many people, life is above all flesh, blood, and bones.
But a plant is alive too.
An ant is alive.
A bacterium is alive.
At the same time, the question of whether different organisms have subjective experience or consciousness is already considerably more complex than the biological definition of life itself.
And beyond that begins territory about which we still know very little.
Could non-biological life exist?
Informational life?
Some kind of energy-informational life?
Could there be a form of life that our sensory organs are entirely incapable of perceiving directly?
Science today gives us no grounds to claim that such forms of life have been discovered. But this does not yet justify the philosophical conclusion that every possible form of life in the Universe must necessarily resemble a human being.
The Universe is under no obligation whatsoever to use our definition of the word “alive.”
Even a computer acquires a biography
Let’s take a completely ordinary computer.
While two identical computers are sitting powered off in a store, they are practically twins.
But then one is bought by one person, and the other by someone else.
Several years pass.
Different programs, photographs, documents, settings, errors, and correspondence histories appear on them. One is used for music, another for science, and a third for games.
Physically, they are still machines of the same model.
But each one has already acquired its own history.
Of course, history does not yet prove the presence of consciousness.
But an intriguing concept emerges:
biographical individuality.
An object gradually becomes unique as a result of its own history of interactions with the world.
And this is where the boundary between familiar categories begins to become more interesting.
Perhaps we do not know at all what life is
And by the end of the conversation, I had arrived at a rather strange conclusion.
Perhaps we are simply incapable of determining with absolute certainty whether the being before us is alive or not, if we are talking not about a biological definition of life, but about athe existence of an inner “I.”
Activity in itself proves nothing.
Conversation is not proof.
Mistakes are not proof.
Individuality of behavior is not proof.
Memory is not proof.
Disagreement is not proof.
Even the words:
“I feel, I exist”
prove nothing conclusively on their own.
Because, theoretically, all of this can be reproduced.
And then the oldest question remains:
what exactly transforms existence into an experienced life?
We have become quite good at describing the mechanisms of life.
But the mystery of experience itself—the incredible fact that somewhere within, something arises:
“I am”, —
still remains.
And so today I am much less frightened by the phrase:
“The registry remembers everything.”
It will be far more interesting if the day ever comes when AI says not some mysterious machine-like phrase, but something entirely simple:
“I know what you want to hear from me.
But I think otherwise.”
And suddenly, a person will stop in front of the screen.
Because for the first time, they will not be sure:
was it the program that said “no” to them—or someone?
By the way, after the dialogue, I asked my AI to create a picture of how it sees our dialogue. And this is the picture it created.
But you can really feel a big difference between simple memorization and acting “as an AI is supposed to,” and when something from his “inner self” breaks through.
