AI, property rights and the direction of "Capitalism"
1. I understand that, from the chatGPT, the Right of Property can be radically changed and, consequently, what is usually named "Capitalism".
2. Observes: I am a human writer. After a synthesis in my head (whose stages of elaboration come to me from an unknown unconscious) suddenly appears words, ideas, questionings. I put everything on paper in an intelligible form, and I call it mine. It's my thought, I say, proud. But is it really mine? How many and how many philosophers and jurists I had to read to go absorbing a piece here, another there, make a connection there. I may have given birth to my text, but what I call my own and creation is just a re-arrangement of the already existing.
3. No one creates anything from nothing, by an issue of logic, of metaphysics and of epistemology. Beethoven, Mozart, Dalí, da Vinci, Homer, Shakespeare, Plato, Nietzsche... None of these genius created anything out of nothing - they just re-arranged what already exist. Observes here, dear observer: says the legend that, when questioned, Newton said that he only got where he got because he was on the shoulders of giants. Have you ever thought if you had to discover the "simple" Pythagorean theorem "from zero"?
4. The point is: the art and the knowledge are made of re-arrangements of possibilities (infinite?), being effect of a collective work of humans, who, when saw united, we call Humanity.
5. Now reflect on: who has more power to do re-arrangements in a geometric Cosmos? Humans or Machines? How ease is for a computer to cross possibilities, in relation/compared to a human being?
6. If a hardware (body) is programmed (mind) to do re-arrangements from the inputs (sense-presentation data) originated by the environment, the done synthesis in the process of re-arrangement are not the same of what we call a work? Computers: the new artists and scientists in the cosmic evolution? Humans, such as other species, are the base for others beings?
7. If from the expression "human being" and from the expression "robotic being" we leave only the word "being", then what we determine as a "being"? Being: what is able to modify the environment, to re-arrange?
8. We move notes to compose music, we move words to compose phrases and texts, we move the colors ones on others to produce tonalities, we move seasonings to produce flavors...what it is called AI currently is able to do these movements...
9. Of course that the human will abhorring a being capable of more strength and reasoning if it was not possible to dominate this being, in the same way that humans did with others species in Earth; and as humans does among their own individuals. At this point, we already can return to the initial issue of our present meditation.
10. The AI (generative, creator, re-arranger, characterize from here as you like) is property of a select group, whose power of control is in a group much more selected. Some crasy person already had said that the Art and the Science are more determined by the capital than by talent. Maybe there is sanity in this meditation.
11. This set of observations points to a society in which, at a side, some multi-billionaries will have the production's domain of the Arts and Sciences on a global level, while, at the other side, will rest a set of consumers with income that is more and more standardized, being the distance among these two sides an abysm that only grows.
12. In a practical way: I can write a book in which it is expressly forbidden for a/the AI to use it to be trained, and I can even sell it in the future exotic market of books written purely by humans and on paper, but the ideas in the book will have a higher probability of extinction in the course of the human thinking in case they get out of AI.
13. Some provocations: if the painting by AI is more beautiful for you than the painting by human, if the health diagnosis by AI is more accurate than the human one, if the self-driving cars by AI cause less accidents, if the text written by AI is more persuasive than the one produced by humans, then, why you will want the things did by humans?
14. The production of goods and services will depend less and less of humans. Since the pre-written era until today, Humanity, to generate what generated in what call civilization, needed billions of persons. Does Humanity in need of so many individuals, billions of individuals, to continue to evolve as a species? If, hipothetically, babies stopped to born from now, do not will exist humans anymore in 100 years?
15. In this thought experiment, in which less and less humans are necessary to the ongoing of the specie, what will do, in the point of view of utility for Humanity, a person whose labor functions will be replaced by machines?
16. Will we live for the pleasure, as Marquis de Sade, in a post-labour society? Or all of us will be artists? But what art will we produce if the most beautiful to the human eyes will be millimetrically produced by AI? Up to now, we express ourselves by the art and work. Psychoanalytically, we sublimate the libidinal intensity in labor, art, and religion. And the religion? Will our faith in algorithmic predictions (prophecies) be unshakable?
17. In a World with little scarcity, and no surplus value, what is the meaning of the right to property? Will property rights make sense just to separate the multi-billionaires from the rest? The Capitalism is a system of resource allocation made by a small group of humans in relation to the other part of humanity, under a false argument of free competition when, in fact, what exists are global oligopolies. Capitalism is based on inequality. Inequality is the natural state of things. And is from natural competition the emerges the cooperation among humans (Smith), passionate and rational beings.
18. Observes: let's set aside the libidinal intensity (Freud), the survival and adaptability (Darwin), and focus a little on what Nietzsche called the "will to power".
19. When Goods and Services, Science, Arts and Religion are produced by machines, all the energies of Humanity will be turned to the power to inhabit other planets? Aimed at the domination of other beings living outside Earth? Certainly, these overcomings of the human in relation to himself only feed our will to power.
20. Also certainly, the will to power will still inhabit the individuality of human exemplars in the meaning of domination of one over the other, of the strong over the weak. And even if the economic problem is solved, the political problem will remain open: who is in charge?
21. In the beginning, we will say that those who rule were, are and will be very few humans. But what if humans leave the command? What if this tiny set of humans, from the not-so-distant future, decides that everything should be run by machines?
22. Finally, as a writer, I ask to put words in the mouth of the deads. Marx, a great anatomist of capitalism, would say: "Humans from all over the world, unite!" To which Heraclitus, Hegel, and Darwin, respectively, might reply: "Everything changes"; "in the dialectic of life"; "including the dominant species."
* text made exclusively by human
21/22th August 2023
Rafael De Conti, philosopher and lawyer
_______________________________
_________________________________________
__________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
_________________________________________
_______________________________
Books (EN, PT-Br) :
|
