Soon, We Will Have a Living Algorithm

I have heard talk recently about how we could potentially use AI to create brains. Yes, you read that right, brains. Like that thing in your head. They are just going to make that.

Okay probably not yours specifically, at least I hope not. But the idea is that if we can produce a brain entirely under our control, then we will be able to understand what is going on with the brain.

I think stems from recent research where we have created synthetic life with the use of AI. Although we don’t really think of viruses as ‘living,’ this is still a grand step toward creating life. This has long stemmed from technologies like AlphaFold, which was originally used to beat people in board games, that could generatively model the shapes of proteins and other tiny things. We’re at a point now where scientists can just get a code that can be plugged into their programs and then they can model the tiny things for themselves. It’s advanced to a point where now we have the chemistry to make tiny things and experts predict we will have AI tiny things soon.

If you can’t tell, I’m no expert with this stuff. But I think you can get what I’m saying. We are creating life. Very fitting in light of the new Frankenstein movie dropping soon. Basically, we are one step away from making AI infused lifeforms.

Anyway, this has major implications for many things. On the one hand, this will likely usher in major improvements to medicine. We could create personalized antibodies for individuals that can specifically target, for instance, cancer cells in their bodies. General medicine will certainly get better as well, we should suspect. There are potential drawbacks, though. This paper talks about all the lame philosophical ones. I’m gonna talk about the real stuff like war. We are on the verge of creating self replicating nanobots that can do, well, anything. We could create a virus that is harmful to only one specific person based on their genetic code. An enemy could create a microbe that really loves eating metal. And then flush it down the toilet in a city to eat the whole sewer system.

See, exciting stuff to come. But back to the regularly scheduled program.

Basically, they are going to try to make a brain. Like said, this is so that we may understand the brain and how it works in excruciating detail. For instance, they have proposed that we could model the brain of an animal like a parrot or whale, animals that have apparent sentient communication, and learn their language. Now that does sound awesome.

But what concerns me is the metaphysical and moral/ethical aspects to this. 1) Is that a Boltzmann brain and 2) is that okay?

Now, when they say “make a brain,” I don’t know if they mean computationally model a brain or literally make a brain in a vat type thing. Given the fact that they have already essentially created life with AI and the next logical step is AI infused life, why wouldn’t they grow a brain in a lab? Either way, is that a Boltzmann brain?

Afterall, a Boltzmann brain is the hypothetical consciousness that arises out of thin air. Is this not the same? Although there is a specific brain substrate in the latter case, the brain is still generatively created with AI. It may model an already existent brain of a certain animal, but it is not the exact identical brain to that of any specific living organism. The brain is, in the latter case, just comprised of the brain tissue of an organism. And if a consciousness were to arise out of this, is it not fair to say that it is a Boltzmann brain?

Input is always appreciated in the comments, but I think this is a relatively convincing argument for a Boltzmann brain potentially existing. And if you’re an eternalist or a 4 dimensionalist, then the Boltzmann brain already exists. How about that?

Concerning 2), whether or not this is morally sound or ethical, my heart immediately jumps to no. To create a brain, and potentially a consciousness, for the sake of science is reconcilable depending on if what we learn from it is beneficial. I have faith that it would be, but is the actual allowance of an AI to create a brain straight up not good?

At first I thought of in vitro fertilization, the fertilization of an egg with sperm outside of the womb. Essentially, spawning a fetus in a lab. In this case, dependent on what you define as a human or as life, you are literally making a human in a lab. And, it is not being generatively made with AI and is against the will of the incurring fetus. Although it may not be against the will of the egg or the sperm, which are living, to be fertilized, the resultant human is not in on this decision.

That was a lot of different philosophical views in one, but it honestly makes the case for the brain look mild. I mean, the brain is being generated with AI that is not technically living from a substratum that was not previously living into something that need not be in another living organism. Is it technically the will of the AI to allow the brain to be generated, although the AI is by design going to make the brain, so we are freeing the consciousness of the AI at least. And should an animal consciousness arise from the brain; is that not only natural? That the brain inherit consciousness?

In the words of a dear friend, "I dunno man.” Sometimes these philosophical battles really entrench the mind and the valuable work being done. Although I ask all of these questions for the time being, I do genuinely believe that the work at hand is going to change the course of history. And for the better, I would like to hope. This leaves me with one prescient last question. When we create not just life, but consciousness, are we then God?