Philosophy Eats AI

I was about to be very excited that my bachelors in Philosophy might become relevant on its face for once in my life! But, I’m not sure that flexing that professionally is going to get me at the top of any neat AI projects.

But wouldn’t that be great?

The article is about mapping Philosophy into AI project management.

> Philosophical perspectives on what AI models should achieve (teleology), what counts as knowledge (epistemology), and how AI represents reality (ontology) also shape value creation. Without thoughtful and rigorous cultivation of philosophical insight, organizations will fail to reap superior returns and competitive advantage from their generative and predictive AI investments.

> In all these hyped-products, you are actually being given the "and then Mr. Robot said" lines from a kind of theater-script. This document grows as your contribution is inserted as "Mr. User says", plus whatever the LLM author calculates "fits next."

and we are creating such a document now, where "Terr_" plays a fictional character who is skeptical of LLM hype, and "anxoo" roleplays a character who is concerned about the level of AI capabilities.

you protest, "no, i'm a real person with real thoughts! the character is me! the AI 'character' is a a fiction created by an ungodly pile of data and linear algebra!" and i reply, "you are a fiction created by an ungodly mass of neuron activations and hormones and neurotransmitters".

i agree that we cannot know what an LLM is "really thinking", and when people say that the AIs have "learned how to [X]" or have "demonstrated deception" or whatever, there's an inevitable anthropomorphization. i agree that when people talk to chatGPT and it acts "friendly and helpful", that we don't really know whether the AI is friendly and helpful, or whether the "mind" inside is some utterly alien thing.

the point is, none of that matters. if it writes code, it writes code. if it's able to discover new scientific insights, or if it's able to replace the workforce, or if it's able to control and manipulate resources, those are all concrete things it will do in the real world. to assume that it will never get there because it's just playing a fancy language game is completely unwarranted overconfidence.

That's one of the things. Even in human-written fiction, the depths of any character you read about is pure smoke and mirrors. People regularly perceive fictional characters as if they are real people (and it's fun to do so), but it would be impossible for an author to simulate a complete human being in their head.

It seems that LLMs operate a lot like I would in improv. In a scene, I might add, "This is the fifth time you've driven your car into a ditch this year." I don't know what the earlier four times were like. No one there had any idea I was even going to say that. I just say it as a method of increasing stakes and creating the illusion of history in order to serve a narrative purpose. I'll often include real facts to serve the verisimilitude of a scene, but I don't have time to do real fact checking. I need to keep the momentum going and will gladly make up facts as a suits the narrative and my character.

As long as it affects the real world, it doesn't matter what semantical category you feel compelled to push LLMs into.

If Copilot will no longer reply helpfully because your previous messages were rude then that is a consequence. It doesn't matter whether it was "really upset" or not.

If some future VLM robot decides to take your hand off as some revenge plot, that's a consequence. It doesn't matter if this is some elaborate role play. It doesn't matter if the robot "has no real identity" and "cannot act on real vengeance". Like who cares ? Your hand is gone and it's not coming back.

Are there real world consequences ? Yes ? Then the handwringing over whether it's just "elaborate science fiction" or "real deceit" is entirely meaningless.

There is a lot of this "philosopher king" stuff. Prophets, ubermenchs, tlatoanis. It seems foreign to the concept of philosophy. As I see it, this comes more from the lineage of arts than the lineage of thinkers (it's not a critic, just an observation).

I think this is very obvious and both artists and philosophers understand it.

I'm worried about the mercantilist guild. They don't seem to get the message. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't really know much about what they think. Their actions show disgerard for the other two guilds.

> The fact that the majority of deep thinking and deep work of our time serves mainly to feed the endless growth of capital - instead of the well-being of humankind - is the great tragedy of our time.

I'm not blind to when this goes horribly wrong, or when needs go unaddressed because they aren't profitable, but most of the time these interests are unintentionally well aligned.

What's the philosophy department at the local steel fabricator contributing exactly?

If that ever comes to pass. This is not guaranteed.

There are a whole bunch of software problems where "just prompt an LLM" is now a viable solution. Need to analyse some data? You could program a solution, or you could just feed it to ChatGPT with a prompt. Need to build a rough prototype for the front-end of a web app? Again, you could write it yourself, or you could just feed a sketch of the UI and a prompt to an LLM.

That might be a dead end, but a lot of people are betting a lot of money that we're just at the beginning of a very steep growth curve. It is now plausible that the future of software might not be discrete apps with bespoke interfaces, but vast general-purpose models that we interact with using natural language and unstructured data. Rather than being written in advance, software is extracted from the latent space of a model on a just-in-time basis.

It is even less meaningful than "software is eating the world". But it sounds catchy, and people can remember it.

The software that powers LLM inference is very small, and is the same no matter what task you ask it to perform. LLMs are really the neural architecture and model weights used.

[dead]